But nothing hits that sweetspot in the cynical cardio-callus more than a tall pitcher of Epsteinmania, his smug-sucking smirk being the pitch-perfect visage of recalcitrant felony.

But even after several years of telling this story to various people asking "Who?", I'm not only pleased at the sudden tenacity of the public imagination, but haven't been less than thrilled at the continuing stream of curious insights derived from his diaboloical dingle. Like, for example, how wonderful it is to see that, after 35 years, no one in Manhattan who partied with this wanna-be travolta ever had the curiosity as to where his money came from. Oh, I'm happy to see that those questions are now being asked, I just think it's hilarious that in the stampede of avaricious envy, that negligible detail of the source of his success was never breached. Now I know that I'm just a humble country lawyer who don't know a bidet from an adieu, but for some wishful reason, I kinda assumed that Wall Street had better instincts when it came to vetting amongst their own. It's a similar giggle I get whenever I see the latest talented imposters confiding their way into the circles, and checkbooks, of allegedly educated aristocracy.

For those who don't read links, it comes down to a couple of possibilities, ranging from a possible Madoff-style Ponzi scheme to straight up extortion. His "give me a billion dollars and power of attorney" fiscal skills certainly suggest the former; a CD in a safe marked "Young *name* + *name*" strongly implicates the latter. Hey, why not both? When you're rolling like Jeffrey! How can a man "own" the largest residency on the island of Manhattan, and no one bats a lash over how he paid for it? The fact that he's known to have hidden cameras in intimate parts of his house is not surprising to those who've been paying attention. The blackmail aspect of the story makes enough sense as to be quickly become a given. The only question is who and how deep.

Vicky Ward wrote:He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta.

Well, that takes it up a notch. Nobody craves extortion quite like intelligence agencies. Almost as much as anonymity. It doesn't require a couple minutes of brainstorm to wonder why this would be, but again the crucial question of "who and how deep" bobs to the surface.

Maybe we could look at whatever earlier statements we can get from Acosta, like in 2011 when he described the use by Epstein's lawyers of private investigators, saying it amounted to a "year-long assault on the prosecution and prosecutors", specifying "I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered." Well, good thing that didn't influence the speedy secret sleazeball plea deal he would eagerly dole out in response to this unprecedented aggression. But how do we really know what he means by "aggressive"? Can we maybe find indications in the available eyewitness evidence from various victims and family members - "They sat in black SUVs outside the homes of accusers, questioned their current and former boyfriends, and chased one parent's car off the road"..."often made telephone contact with accusers either just before or after a police investigator spoke with them"...."photographing family and chasing visitors who come to the house"..."warning about cooperating for compensation or facing consequences"...."obtain the medical records of his accusers".... and informing victims in no uncertain terms that "those who hurt him will be dealt with". Now maybe these are just thugs for hire, sure. But maybe I can't help but be reminded of Harvey Weinstein's similar discovered use of ex-Mossad to surveil and intimidate his victims. Now, for some of you, dropping Mossad is a tactless faux pas. I probably wouldn't have mentioned it, except for the thing about Epstein's primary girl-groomer, Ghislaine Maxwell, whose family history makes the connection slightly more compelling.

"I dont! Hammer!"

Oh, Lady Ghislaine. One of the handful of top co-conspirators who just lost their non-prosecution immunity deal. She's adamantly denied everything. Unfortunately though, she's probably not super psyched about the recent ruling to unseal a couple thouandd court documents, many of which pertain to the civil suit brought by one of Epstein's victims, accusing Maxwell of soliciting and grooming the sex traffick, and a suit for which Maxwell paid millions of dollars to settle and seal.

as always, I’m never sure how much to weigh Trump’s words when compared to Trump’s actions. like, Trump did use bigoted language against those four Congresswomen but I’m never sure whether that is trivial in the face of something like the migrant concentration camps. it’s not like a lot of us are surprised that Trump would say something like that even if we are disgusted. and it’s probably better to be disgusted than to shrug it off. of course, for any non-white American who has ever been made to feel like a foreigner, I don’t doubt those words hit a painful nerve. I’m just still never sure when Trump has brought The Discourse to a new low.

mostly this feeds that awful feeling in the pit of my stomach that as the election grows closer, Trump will likely say more stuff to turn up the country’s temperature. and then what happens if he loses? less about what Trump will do and more what his supporters will do. like, where will this guy be in a post-Trump America?

not that I consider his priorities more important than the ones of those that have suffered through Trump's policies. but it's still on my mind.

One of the alt-right bloggers invited to the white house last week, to commiserate on the fact that people have the power to react to things people say. once said that Obama looked like a "skinny ghetto crackhead". It's about the best baseline for 'you might be a racist' that I can imagine. Say what you will about Obama, if you look at him and think he looks like a crackhead, I have to assume that this is a black thing.

Similarly, when I hear Tucker Swanson Jr. talk about Ilhan Omar as "dangerous", I tend to assume that it's also likely a color issue.

It's nice of Trump to spell it out as clearly as a racist can, but it also needs to be addressed how this affects those Trump supporters who may be dumb enough to actually see these women as existential threats to America, or as creatures undeserving of having a democratic say in how we run the ship. In that sense, it is very dangerous indeed, for entirely different and distinct reasons. Trump feels entitled to be able to constantly complain about America, even though his mother was an immigrant, putting him on a par (and less in Pressley's case) with these women that he would be most reluctant to acknowledge. We see what he's doing. Everyone sees what he's doing. And when people begin lying to themselves about what they know to be the truth is when the fake news habit, and its resulting ethical dissoluton, really metastisizes. It is perfectly clear to the dumbest child and the smartest dog what people support when they support Trump.

It's natural that smarter people on the right want to try to prettify what's going on and direct it down a more presentable path (see The Claremont Review and American Affairs), but set that against Trump's latest bout of orange-face minstrelsy and it's clear that this shit is well out of their hands. We're all dealing with centrifugal forces right now, but Trump has really run away with the craziest, dumbest strands of his party in a terrifying way. That Hawley is trying to appeal to the downfall of the Roman Republic to shore up his folding for Trumpism is nauseating. Ah, yes, the Republic fell not due to the strivings of and accommodations to tyrants, but because the yeomen farmer was no longer sufficiently nationalist and independent enough! Very simple. Very stupid. Also a very convenient excuse to brush off Trump's incessant, increasing violations of the body politic, the complicity of reality-tv nationalism in this trend, and the now deep-rooted dependence of the Republican party on his cult of personality.

One of the alt-right bloggers invited to the white house last week, to commiserate on the fact that people have the power to react to things people say. once said that Obama looked like a "skinny ghetto crackhead". It's about the best baseline for 'you might be a racist' that I can imagine. Say what you will about Obama, if you look at him and think he looks like a crackhead, I have to assume that this is a black thing.

Similarly, when I hear Tucker Swanson Jr. talk about Ilhan Omar as "dangerous", I tend to assume that it's also likely a color issue.

It's nice of Trump to spell it out as clearly as a racist can, but it also needs to be addressed how this affects those Trump supporters who may be dumb enough to actually see these women as existential threats to America, or as creatures undeserving of having a democratic say in how we run the ship. In that sense, it is very dangerous indeed, for entirely different and distinct reasons. Trump feels entitled to be able to constantly complain about America, even though his mother was an immigrant, putting him on a par (and less in Pressley's case) with these women that he would be most reluctant to acknowledge. We see what he's doing. Everyone sees what he's doing. And when people begin lying to themselves about what they know to be the truth is when the fake news habit, and its resulting ethical dissoluton, really metastisizes. It is perfectly clear to the dumbest child and the smartest dog what people support when they support Trump.

To be fair, though, Obama was pretty ghetto. Have you not seen the Daily Show recaps of his fashion related scandals? Dude wore a tan suit. And also Reagan, but - how much more ghetto can you get? It’s clearly not a race thing.

To be fair, though, Obama was pretty ghetto. Have you not seen the Daily Show recaps of his fashion related scandals? Dude wore a tan suit. And also Reagan, but - how much more ghetto can you get? It’s clearly not a race thing.

I remember a picture of Obama propping his feet up on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. Like some thug.

Speaking of the Republican hypocrisy, I'm not sure if this story is getting much mainstream push: "the RNC has announced it will withhold valuable support from candidates and state parties who refuse to use WinRed". Winred is a fundraising platform that was launched by the Trump White House. In essence, they're saying that if you want to raise money or access voter data as a Republican candidate, in local and national elections, you got to get it from Trump.

It's kind of like the way that Republicans like to hate on Hillary for the way she and the DNC treated Bernie, except for some reason they think that their brazen transparency makes it OK now for them to do pretty much the exact same thing, except imagine if Hillary had demanded loyalty for every Democrat on every local 2016 ticket.

Obviously not one of the crucial stories of the day, but I feel the need to comment.

I'm a long-term cat person. Sure, I've had my share of dogs as well and loved them and have never thought it necessary to choose, but I tend to prefer the synergic vibe of the feline, gun to my head. My cats are "outdoor", since I have some yard for them to laze and prowl, and it's been my custom not to declaw my cats accordingly, in case of worst-case scenarios, and this does create some tension when they're in my lap and suddenly feel the need to grip my thigh.

However, I also have plenty of friends with cats who do not share the luxury of outdoor amenities (aka, apartments) or the safety of a civilized neighborhood (roaming adolescent cat-hating sociopaths) who prefer to keep their cats in-doors. Likewise, they tend to have their cats declawed. I see in NY where this procedure is now being considered as a form of animal cruelty. In my experience, this is absolute horseshit. I've known a number of declawed, in-door cats who suffer no physical or behavioral impediments to this procedure when in situations where the self-defense imperative has been removed. Emotionally, these cats show no outward sign of cruelty, any more than having other similar natural inhibitions placed on them (ie, spaying, neutering, for example).

What's most ironic, for me, is that only about a year ago, I was criticized on another message board, by a particularly febrile animal rights poster, for the cruelty of my negligence in even allowing my cats to venture outside at all. Apparently, I'm inviting a host of atrocities onto my cats for this exposure because, for some reason, I trust my kitties to stay somewhat in the proximity of where their food is. So, it's difficult to reconcile how both things could be simultaneously cruel, since only an outdoor cat should require the use of their tensile talons (unless you have other pets which frankly seem to pose a lot of other in-door ethical issues).

There are so many laws that should be enforced to protect animals from wanton human cruelty that it's very difficult to take this very seriously. People need to start prioritizing legislation to protect pets from truly negligent and toxic environments, and let in-door pet lovers preserve their carpets and drapes. And also, maybe NYers need to think about finally booting this Andrew Cuomo prick.

Obviously not one of the crucial stories of the day, but I feel the need to comment.

I'm a long-term cat person. Sure, I've had my share of dogs as well and loved them and have never thought it necessary to choose, but I tend to prefer the synergic vibe of the feline, gun to my head. My cats are "outdoor", since I have some yard for them to laze and prowl, and it's been my custom not to declaw my cats accordingly, in case of worst-case scenarios, and this does create some tension when they're in my lap and suddenly feel the need to grip my thigh.

However, I also have plenty of friends with cats who do not share the luxury of outdoor amenities (aka, apartments) or the safety of a civilized neighborhood (roaming adolescent cat-hating sociopaths) who prefer to keep their cats in-doors. Likewise, they tend to have their cats declawed. I see in NY where this procedure is now being considered as a form of animal cruelty. In my experience, this is absolute horseshit. I've known a number of declawed, in-door cats who suffer no physical or behavioral impediments to this procedure when in situations where the self-defense imperative has been removed. Emotionally, these cats show no outward sign of cruelty, any more than having other similar natural inhibitions placed on them (ie, spaying, neutering, for example).

For context, declawing for non-medical reasons is already banned as cruel in places such as the U.K., Israel, Australia and Brazil and under the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. And plenty of U.S. cities already ban the practice; New York's is just the first state-wide ban.

Your friends may very well have lucked out, but my anecdotal experience from working in an animal shelter runs counter, as I've seen a lot of cats get abandoned following a declawing, most often because they stopped using the litter box due to associated pain. Shelters run by the ASPCA or Humane Society already advise owners against declawing for this reason, and I haven't known veterinarians who perform the procedure.

But beyond anecdotes, the research I've seen points to a high correlation of increased pain and unwanted behaviors associated with declawing. The analogy to spaying and neutering doesn't quite fit, as neither procedure has such a high correlation for complications. One is a removal of soft tissue as compared with an amputation of a joint including bone, and one is frankly unnecessary to achieving the desired result: A cat with claws can be taught not to scratch furniture; a cat with balls can't be taught not to fuck.

What's most ironic, for me, is that only about a year ago, I was criticized on another message board, by a particularly febrile animal rights poster, for the cruelty of my negligence in even allowing my cats to venture outside at all. Apparently, I'm inviting a host of atrocities onto my cats for this exposure because, for some reason, I trust my kitties to stay somewhat in the proximity of where their food is. So, it's difficult to reconcile how both things could be simultaneously cruel, since only an outdoor cat should require the use of their tensile talons (unless you have other pets which frankly seem to pose a lot of other in-door ethical issues).

Usually, the argument I hear against outdoor cats is from amateur ornithologists who maintain they're responsible for bird decline. Let's just agree they should be kept out of movie theaters.

For context, declawing for non-medical reasons is already banned as cruel in places such as the U.K., Israel, Australia and Brazil and under the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. And plenty of U.S. cities already ban the practice; New York's is just the first state-wide ban.

I'm not really impressed by the bandwagon, I'd like to hear some actual reasons for banning the procedure rather than the number of people opting in.

Your friends may very well have lucked out, but my anecdotal experience from working in an animal shelter runs counter, as I've seen a lot of cats get abandoned following a declawing, most often because they stopped using the litter box due to associated pain.

First of all, "luck" has nothing to do with the independent cruelty of abandonment. If you want my support in banning the abandonment of your pets (which, by law, should be the singular responsibility of the owner to care for), then you have it. I don't see any reason why I should support a declawing ban simply to justify and allow people to continue to abandon their pets without worry. Secondly, sidestepping the catch-22 of the scenario, I guess myself and pretty much every other cat owner I personally know have been lucky in that I have not experienced a cat who suffered long-term pain from declawing that would cause an issue with their litter. Botched declawing surguries should be dealt with as its own crime, and most cat owners know better than to let their recently declawed cats use a litter box until their paws have fully healed.

But beyond anecdotes, the research I've seen points to a high correlation of increased pain and unwanted behaviors associated with declawing.

Thanks, I'll check this out more fully in detail. I'm not familiar with these symptoms, but since not tending to have declawed cats myself, I can only say that I haven't had anyone else relate anything similar to me from their experience. The cats I've known who've been declawed have still been active and engaging after their surgury has healed (usually a matter of weeks to a couple of months).

Usually, the argument I hear against outdoor cats is from amateur ornithologists who maintain they're responsible for bird decline.

That's silly. Most of the anti-outdoor stuff I'm familiar with involves exposure to ticks and parasites (and, of course, those roaming bands of abusive young boys), but I believe a lot of this has to do with where you live and what other animals (and carcasses) your cats are being exposed to.

Thanks, I'll check this out more fully in detail. I'm not familiar with these symptoms, but since not tending to have declawed cats myself, I can only say that I haven't had anyone else relate anything similar to me from their experience. The cats I've known who've been declawed have still been active and engaging after their surgury has healed (usually a matter of weeks to a couple of months).

I think the most significant takeaway from that study is here: "Optimal surgical technique, with removal of P3 in its entirety, was associated with fewer adverse outcomes and lower odds of these outcomes, but operated animals remained at increased odds of biting (OR 3.0) and undesirable habits of elimination (OR 4.0) compared with non-surgical controls."

Meaning the surgery needn't be botched to result in negative changes in the cat's behavior. This is the sense in which I suggest your friends may have been lucky, as the authors still find a link to elevated rates of these behaviors even with optimal care as it relates to declawing.

(I was also suspicious of whether this might be a PETA initiative, since they discourage indoor cat ownership altogether.)

PETA is definitely anti-declawing, but that just puts them in line with non-wacko animal welfare organizations like the ASPCA and Humane Society, the latter of which has been opposed to the practice for more than 15 years (as far back as I ever worked with them). Broken clocks and all that.

I think the most significant takeaway from that study is here: "Optimal surgical technique, with removal of P3 in its entirety, was associated with fewer adverse outcomes and lower odds of these outcomes, but operated animals remained at increased odds of biting (OR 3.0) and undesirable habits of elimination (OR 4.0) compared with non-surgical controls."

Meaning the surgery needn't be botched to result in negative changes in the cat's behavior. This is the sense in which I suggest your friends may have been lucky, as the authors still find a link to elevated rates of these behaviors even with optimal care as it relates to declawing.

I'm still curious about what kind of statistical likelihoods we're talking about here. "Increased odds" are not exactly an automatic majority. It's definitely concerning, but I don't see it rising to the occasion of "cruelty" in itself. It sounds like material that needs to be strongly considered by cat owners, maybe even discouraged by veterinarians, but still not criminalized.

PETA is definitely anti-declawing, but that just puts them in line with non-wacko animal welfare organizations like the ASPCA and Humane Society, the latter of which has been opposed to the practice for more than 15 years (as far back as I ever worked with them). Broken clocks and all that.

I got that backwards. It looks like they're opposed to outdoor cats. Unless they're on a leash. Which, for a cat, seems almost most cruel of all.

After a very brief seminar on odds ratios, I think I have a better idea of interpreting the percentages from that study (I initially thought the numbers were the percentages) and it's a bit more troubling.

I have heard concerns that a declawed cat should not be let outside. I have had declawed cats that spent much of their time outside on both coasts, along with numerous other neighborhood cats, and had no issues and have heard of no critical issues. I have never heard that cats should not be let outside full stop. A cat wants to go outside. Let the cat make its own choice. Said person who complained about outdoor cats would not enjoy Turkey, let’s just leave it at that.

No cat has ever chosen to be declawed over going outside, I think we can all agree on that.

1) Your report prescribes a "constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct". Your later statement describes "a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing". Is there, perhaps, a more simple three-syllable word that would describe this process and would you like to look directly into the camera and say it with your chest?

2) Does your report at anytime recommend that the Attorney General should make the final determinations that you had chosen not to?

3) Did you author or authorize the March 27th letter to the AGs office describing your objections to Barr's characterization of the "context, nature and substance" of your report?

4) William Barr has stated publicly that the OLC policy had no bearing on your decision to defer judgment on obstruction. Would you agree with that, or why not?

5) Your report describes "indentified gaps" of "unavailable information" involving evidence or testimonies that were false, incomplete, destroyed or otherwise inaccessible (including due to the refusal to cooperate with the investigation - such as the president's refusal for an in-person interview or refusal to answer questions on obstruction). In light of these gaps, to what extent can you consider your report as the final word on this subject? In your professional opinion, was your office given sufficient time to complete the investigation, again considering these "gaps" and the "additional light" of unattained testimony that you were unable to clarify?

6) Has William Barr or any other DoJ official privately communicated with you any issues over executive privilege concerning any information that may be broached in this testimony today?

7) As you've claimed of the OLC policy, the question of charging a sitting president was not under consideration. Why wasn't this communicated at the outset of your investigation?

8) The president yesterday told an impressible group of minors that Article II gives him "the right to do whatever I want" in regards to your investigation and the DoJ more generally. What is your professional opinion on that assertion?

9) Would you please describe the extent to which the Trump campaign was demonstrably aware and welcoming of the effort of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump?

10) Roger Stone is continuing to use the Seth Rich conspiracy to claim that his indictment, as well as the entire basis of your investigation, is illegitimate. Would you like to take a minute here to laugh at him?

1) Your report prescribes a "constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct". Your later statement describes "a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing". Is there, perhaps, a more simple three-syllable word that would describe this process and would you like to look directly into the camera and say it with your chest?

As to my more cynical fears, the Dems were unable to do so simple a task as relating and identifying Mueller's charges to impeachment.

One of the few items from Mueller's testimony that is indisputably unambiguous is that there continues to be an active cybersecurity threat from Russia to interfere with the integrity of democracy. Since the vast majority of TV News is obsessed with "optics" and performative critiques, trained as they are to respond to the lowest common attention spans and facile perceptions, they've been too preoccupied with Mueller's manner and age to pay much attention to small details like Thursday's release of the Senate Intelligence Report which had the otherwise (in a more sober non-social media impulse-engine world) astonishing claim that Russia's efforts were earlier than previously thought (2014) and more extensive (gaining access to voting systems in all 50 states). This was on the same day that Mitch McConnell denied two election security bills to come to a floor vote, citing them, somewhat Freudianly, as "partisan". So should it be a surprise that the Director of National Intelligence is ousted mere days after he announced a new office to oversee election security? Does anyone doubt that Trump has no motivation to combat a rigged election that benefits himself? Apparently all of these facts in close proximity have failed to capture the corporate media's, much less the public's, imagination as thoroughly as, I dunno, methgators?

I don’t need to know about how Russia is actively continuing to interfere in our elections to benefit the party in power while the leader of that party continues to stress the need to work closely with Russia and facetiously tells the Russian leader to “knock it off” as if he’s not actually doing anything. That’s normal stuff, not news.

reading the El Paso shooter’s manifesto dredges up one of my many concerns for the future: movements that support action on environmental degradation while also supporting Trumpian immigration/white nationalist policies. like, how long will it be before the mainstream Republican party platform on climate change switches from "know nothing, do nothing" to eco-fascism (unless Trump's immigration policies mean we're already there)

do you think a lot of Republicans are afraid of being targeted by Trump supporters should they push back too hard

and I don't just mean getting voted out come election day

No no. I think it's pure political contingency at this point.

Trump is not clever, let's remember. He's already admitted to exactly what he's doing in terms of stoking racial resentments (pretty exclusively white racial anxiety) for political gain: "The only thing they have, that they can do is, now, play the race card, which they’ve always done". In the current Republican calculus, as long as Dems are perceived as on the side of minorities, then they can reap the rewards of the support from the soon-to-be minority. The fear of "demographic change" and "birthrates", these aren't even dog whistles, and it shows how far the Overton window has tipped that much of the media insists on treating them as such.

You may have noticed that Trump also praised Steve Bannon this week, which is apt timing for me to point out what Bannon said after Charlottesville, "I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." Of course "economic nationalism" is all about race and identity as well, but shhh, shhh. Let's stick with the main obvious issue, which is that Trump has been a racial demagogue since he rode down the escalator. When you paint certain people as existential threats to the country, as incapable of honoring "our" values, then the only thing shocking about these shootings is that there haven't been more of them.

also, I don't think YARN is here anymore though I can remember him criticizing the Green New Deal for its overtures towards social justice. if he were here, I would tell him that the Malthusian worldview in the El Paso shooter's manifesto is a good reminder what a response to climate change could look like without that bleeding-heart egalitarianism. and I don't necessarily mean outright killing people at the border but a series of policies that "pull up the ladder" on out-group persons in favor of the more deserving.

(but if you see this YARN, I'm not all that interested in a debate. apologies but my head is in cement)

Epstein's established sex trafficking ring could very well have led to the exposure of a wider network of international, namely Eastern European, sex trafficking rings, and this would be enough to silence him by interested parties.

Basically, what we should all be concerned on watching, is the evidence taken from Epstein's safe (almost assuredly blackmail sexual material) and seeing how quickly that evidence disappears.

Basically, what we should all be concerned on watching, is the evidence taken from Epstein's safe (almost assuredly blackmail sexual material) and seeing how quickly that evidence disappears.

also just to be clear, I don't think he was murdered per se, that he wanted out doesn't seem hard to believe. my most conspiratorial thought is that something was worked out so that the next time he tried, he wouldn't be stopped. but time will hopefully tell.

Epstein's established sex trafficking ring could very well have led to the exposure of a wider network of international, namely Eastern European, sex trafficking rings, and this would be enough to silence him by interested parties.

Basically, what we should all be concerned on watching, is the evidence taken from Epstein's safe (almost assuredly blackmail sexual material) and seeing how quickly that evidence disappears.

And this doesn't even get into what for me was the most eye-popping name to appear in the documents released right before Epstein's suicide. Virginia Giuffre, whose 2015 defamation suit against Maxwell was the source of the document dump, says she was directed as part of Epstein's trafficking ring to have sex with Tom Pritzker.

Pritzker is part of one of the wealthiest families in America and is executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corp. His cousin, J.B. Pritzker, is the wealthiest politician in America, having practically purchased the governorship of Illinois for himself. Another cousin, Penny Pritzker, was Obama's Commerce secretary.

Tom Pritzker also happens to be chairman of North America Western Asia Holdings (NAWAH), an investment firm he founded in 2011 with former U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul Brinkley. During his time at the Pentagon, Brinkley was responsible for leading the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations, which was tasked with wooing investors to Iraq and Afghanistan. Executives Brinkley brought into the project included officials from companies like IBM, Boeing and Honeywell. NAWAH has two major operations in Iraq: NAWAH Port Management, which was responsible for modernizing the Port of Basra in a project that led to record oil exports from the port, and NAWAH Supply & Distribution, the exclusive distributor in Iraq for the world's largest oil pipe, equipment and supply distributor, MRC Global.

So what we have here is a multibillionaire chairman of an international hotel chain accused of being part of an international sex trafficking ring. (I mean, not only having unlimited access to hotel rooms all over the world but control of their security would certainly be convenient for those purposes, no?) Not only that, but he's chairman of a company responsible for rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq, a company he founded with a former Pentagon official whose job in office was to attract investors to the Middle East. Oh, and not only that, this guy's cousin is governor of Illinois. If you're looking for the most powerful, connected, wealthy person explicitly named in the conspiracy so far, for my money it's Pritzker.

Oh, and of course like any other mega-rich hoteliers, the Pritzkers have a history with Trump. Jay Pritzker, Tom's father, was the business partner on Donald's very first construction project in Manhattan: the purchase and renovation of the Commodore Hotel into the Grand Hyatt, a project that was green-lit with a 40-year, $400 million tax abatement by the city after some very dodgy dealings between Fred Trump and Deputy Mayor Stanley Friedman right in the middle of New York's financial crisis. That partnership ended acrimoniously; following the settlement of lawsuits between Trump and Hyatt, the hotel chain bought Trump out of the project in 1996.

It was Friday night in a protective housing unit of the federal jail in Lower Manhattan, and Jeffrey Epstein, the financier accused of trafficking girls for sex, was alone in a cell, only 11 days after he had been taken off a suicide watch.

Just that morning, thousands of documents from a civil suit had been released, providing lurid accounts accusing Mr. Epstein of sexually abusing scores of girls.

Mr. Epstein was supposed to have been checked by the two guards in the protective housing unit every 30 minutes, but that procedure was not followed that night, a law-enforcement official with knowledge of his detention said.

In addition, because Mr. Epstein may have tried to commit suicide three weeks earlier, he was supposed to have had another inmate in his cell, two officials said. But the jail had recently transferred his cellmate and allowed Mr. Epstein to be housed alone, a decision that also violated the jail’s procedures, the two officials said.

And this doesn't even get into what for me was the most eye-popping name to appear in the documents released right before Epstein's suicide. Virginia Giuffre, whose 2015 defamation suit against Maxwell was the source of the document dump, says she was directed as part of Epstein's trafficking ring to have sex with Tom Pritzker.

Pritzker is part of one of the wealthiest families in America and is executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corp. His cousin, J.B. Pritzker, is the wealthiest politician in America, having practically purchased the governorship of Illinois for himself. Another cousin, Penny Pritzker, was Obama's Commerce secretary.

Tom Pritzker also happens to be chairman of North America Western Asia Holdings (NAWAH), an investment firm he founded in 2011 with former U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul Brinkley. During his time at the Pentagon, Brinkley was responsible for leading the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations, which was tasked with wooing investors to Iraq and Afghanistan. Executives Brinkley brought into the project included officials from companies like IBM, Boeing and Honeywell. NAWAH has two major operations in Iraq: NAWAH Port Management, which was responsible for modernizing the Port of Basra in a project that led to record oil exports from the port, and NAWAH Supply & Distribution, the exclusive distributor in Iraq for the world's largest oil pipe, equipment and supply distributor, MRC Global.

So what we have here is a multibillionaire chairman of an international hotel chain accused of being part of an international sex trafficking ring. (I mean, not only having unlimited access to hotel rooms all over the world but control of their security would certainly be convenient for those purposes, no?) Not only that, but he's chairman of a company responsible for rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq, a company he founded with a former Pentagon official whose job in office was to attract investors to the Middle East. Oh, and not only that, this guy's cousin is governor of Illinois. If you're looking for the most powerful, connected, wealthy person explicitly named in the conspiracy so far, for my money it's Pritzker.

Oh, and of course like any other mega-rich hoteliers, the Pritzkers have a history with Trump. Jay Pritzker, Tom's father, was the business partner on Donald's very first construction project in Manhattan: the purchase and renovation of the Commodore Hotel into the Grand Hyatt, a project that was green-lit with a 40-year, $400 million tax abatement by the city after some very dodgy dealings between Fred Trump and Deputy Mayor Stanley Friedman right in the middle of New York's financial crisis. That partnership ended acrimoniously; following the settlement of lawsuits between Trump and Hyatt, the hotel chain bought Trump out of the project in 1996.

I did come across Pritzker's name when I came across a list of Epstein's black book contacts, but that doesn't really amount to too much. Obviously, Epstein had a lot of important social contacts, so it's difficult to place nefarious aspersions on everyone listed here (like Minnie Driver, for example?), but on the other hand, it is quite boggling to fathom, alongside the numerous politicos, international royalty (both Rothschilds and Rockefellers!), and media celebrities listed alongside a number of shadier international money movers, intelligence assets and arms dealers. To that degree, I would say that the most startling name to stick out to me would be Adnan Khashoggi (for both obvious and more obscure reasons). It's all just such a perfect storrm of Orient Express proportions.

"It's styled like what you might see on a castle, with what appears to be a reinforcing lock bar across the face. What makes it peculiar is that if you wanted to keep people out, the bar would be placed inside the building, [but the] locking bar appears to be placed on the outside ... as if it were intended to lock people in."

The temple was also sound-proofed (handy if you're keeping people locked in there), but instead of the music room that it was originally purported to be, they're now saying that it is a gym. Hm-mm. Gym. Oh, I'm sure there's equipment in there. Maybe matched to Ghislaine's "black shiny costume" mentioned by a house manager. No one can hear you submit.

It's a tight race, but I think that Bill Maher saying that progressives only support Palestinians because they believe that brown people are always innocent just may be the most imbecilic thing he's ever said.